Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Warning tags as permanant fixtures

I'm removing the {{NPOV-section}} tag again, but I won't do it again. Before it's restored however, I would like some comment on it as a "permanent fixture". If we have editors here who object to any mention of controversies which have been established as notable, and are properly referenced, then under what circumstances do people think this tag can ever come off? If the issue is simply one of neutral presentation, then I think we've largely achieved that. I don't see any current objections on that basis. <<-armon->> 00:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for taking this to the talk page. But, there are no "editors here who object to any mention of controversies which have been established as notable", so if want responses it would be better to address or at least characterize the actual disputants.

I would answer that the neutrality tag isn't and was never intended to be a "permanent fixture", if it was no one would be debating the way to properly represent these "controversies". So, it's not a permanent fixture, but it exists as long as the neutrality is disputed, pretty much by definition. While I can sympathize with the sentiment that the tag is seemingly permanent, obviously it's not and the focus should remain on the content of the disagreement.

The most overlooked and simultaneously the most relevant issue seems to me that these charges simply aren't notable. I think G-dette explained this best, in the form of an appeal to common sense. It's already the longest section and by the present standard perhaps a dozen more items could be included with equal (and equally questionable) justification. Also, pointing to a specific guideline we have WP:NOTE, which says "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Not one of the citations in the "criticism" section meets this criteria, and rather than being notable, each instance of criticism seems to have expired on impact and never to have created a genuine "controversy". An example of genuine controversy would be, for example, the Al Franken Book Controversy. That was actually in the news and fairly distinguished from one-time op-eds. Abbenm 00:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the policy. By definition criticism of Cole is independent of the subject himself - Cole. What remains is to classify the notability of the author of the criticism and the venue in which it was published. The term "independent of the subject itself" is meant to exclude self-published material that is not otherwise notable, not to represent a firm requirement that every source be also commented upon by another source - which equates to an illogical infinite recursion anyways (and if taken literally would exclude ALL sources that don't also report on each other). - Merzbow 04:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a thoughtful editor and I don't disagree to engage in any fight, but I am not sure that a re-reading will necessarily convince me differently, though I will try. If you visit WP:NOTE, you'll see that the words I put in bold link to a page on independent sources where it says an "independent source is a source which describes a topic from the outside." Also on that same page under the explanation section it says independent sources are necessary "to avoid writing on topics from a biased viewpoint." At minimum, those cited certainly aren't unbiased.

Critics like Karsh, Hitchens etc. are personally invested in their viewpoints, combined with Cole they essentially "are" the controversy itself. The "recursion" would stop at the moment you found a third party that wasn't personally endorsing/invested in one side of the dispute or the other like Cole and his critics are in their respective political views. Does that sound reasonable? I don't see how an opinion that starts and ends with a single article without being reproduced or reviewed or revisited anywhere outside of the disputants themselves constitutes a noteworthy event.

I remain ready to be convinced I'm wrong, but I fear that the present interpretation opens the flood gates for every op-ed ever written, giving plenty (too much) slack for POV's to slip in from all directions and dragging Wikipedia down into a fray it's supposed to stand above. Abbenm 04:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC) One more thing. Since all these guidelines are fairly interconnected and reliant upon one another, the WP:BLP page has another helpful sentence: "If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." That seems very applicable to me, and I think an uninvolved third party is a fair requirement for inclusion in this article. Abbenm 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The sentence from BLP you quoted is meant to apply to Wikipedia editors pushing an agenda, not to reliable outside sources with an agenda who are quoted in a criticism section. The very next sentence makes this clear: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material." Assuming that a specific critic is a notable person and his criticisms can be found in a reliable source, there is no additional requirement that the criticism itself must be in turn reported on by an putatively neutral observer. Although such reportage can give credence to the notability of a given dispute, it is just one more aspect to be weighed, not a necessity. - Merzbow 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this is a discussion about notability and a standard of "neutrality" being applied on top of the requirements of WP:RS -not about the use of the tags. Merzbow's points are correct, and this particular objection has already been raised and addressed. <<-armon->> 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But the existence of the tags themselves is related to those issues, which is why I reiterate them. Abbenm 20:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow quotes WP:BLP: "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. It's pretty clear we have a violation of the part I just highlighted in bold. As for the tags, they must stay on until the dispute is settled, and it clearly has not been. csloat 12:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

I also deleted the reference to the "furious debate in the blogosphere". It didn't fit in the edit summary box.--CSTAR 03:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the fact that I deleted it did not fit in the edit summary box..--CSTAR 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"He also accused Hitchens of stealing his private emails, being a drunk"

This sentence has been slightly changed recently and has sources, but I don't get the point of it or why those specific statements among many others by Cole are being elevated to the level of inclusion. I could pull up the relevant sections of wikipedia guidelines, but after all this disagreement over citing Cole's blog, a blog not immediately involved is being cited, and an alternative media source? Can someone offer a justification for this? Abbenm 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC) My mistake on Metro News. I see the sources on this. Without commenting on the translation controversy itself, this isolated line nonetheless smacks of overemphasis on a side note. Thoughts? Abbenm 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have always been reticent to report name-calling accusations verbatim because they can be overly prejudicial to the the accuser or the subject. Here they are indeed a side-issue to the main argument, which is of far more importance in the scheme of things - whether A. was indeed threatening Israel, and whose translation was most accurate. - Merzbow 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the sentence. Removing a simple statement of fact, without editorializing, and supported by one primary, and 3 (actually 4 this is not actually a blog) secondary sources, is simply untenable. I was asked for one cite to support this, I provided 3 which commented on the "name calling". Another thing which was removed was: This produced furious debate among bloggers.

I fail to see how this is taking sides, it's also a simple statement of fact backed by 3 other sources. Yes, it describes debate in the blogosphere, but Cole's a blogger. <<-armon->> 08:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the main argument wasn't about translation issues. See below to CSTAR... <<-armon->> 09:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a blog. The main argument is about whether a certain statement should be translated as a military threat against Israel or not. This other stuff is a side show and it is completely insulting to anyone's intelligence to take it seriously in an encyclopedia. But I'm not surprised. Anyway, if you want to quote this stuff, quote it completely. "Accused Hitchens of stealing private emails" is bogus, and out of context. The "debilitating drinking problem" is a well known fact about hitchens that he himself proudly boasts of. Being a "warmonger" - well, that's a subjective assessment, and I don't really think it matters if Cole says it, but I don't see how it is notable at all. Plenty of people consider Hitchens a warmonger and I don't think anyone cares all that much. csloat 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also remind participants that several of you were very strongly opposed, and still are, to Cole's "scurrilous propaganda technique" phrase because it was "name calling", why now should accusations that Hitchens is a drunk be included? Whatever the "main argument" was, I don't think it was about Cole's particular statement about Hitchens being a drunk and an email thief. I would also agree with and emphasize Merzbow's entry above. Being a fact in and of itself does not free an entry from the issues of neutrality, undue weight, etc. that have affected every other aspect of this Cole page. Abbenm 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're attempting to point to an inconsistency, I suggest you re-read the objections (plural). One objection, which is pertinent here, was that the post about Karsh was self-published had no reportage in secondary sources. Not the case here. <<-armon->> 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The objection you mention was most certainly secondary to the fact that it was held to be "name calling". Your sources would have helped supposing Cole's statement was relevant. But it's rather about the triviality of an interjection that was already summarized. The opening sentence already says Cole and Hitchens "traded barbs". Why is it necessary to go beyond that and specifically mention what those barbs are? It's just a silly and immaterial sentence. Abbenm 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? Because it's informative, it's what happened, and it's what people were talking about. It either sparks the reader's curiosity to look up the cites and see what was said, or gives them enough info not to bother. <<-armon->> 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You are also conflating what's possibly a caricature of Isragi's arguments with my own. Get him to clarify.

Speaking for myself, what I found problematic was the fact that Cole's Karsk post was, a) self-published, and b) unreported in secondary sources, and c) an attempt to provide content to WP via such a source. I also asserted that in light of this, the BLP issues re: Karsh should be looked at for consistency -as BLP was being used as a pretext to remove perfectly properly cited material.

I also argued, which is a completely separate point, that if the charges of AS are serious, and I don't dispute that, then I would prefer a better response from Cole than "Oh, he's just a propagandist" and "my friends don't think I'm antisemitic". I still don't think any of this was properly addressed, but I also see it as a lost cause when the constant assumption of bad faith means it's not going to be.

Since you've raised my supposed inconsistency, I guess it's only fair to ask how you explain yours. <<-armon->> 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but I never agreed with the characterization of Cole's reply to Karsh as name calling in the first place, which my past edits on this talk page make clear. For yourself, you've referred (bottom paragraph) to Cole's Karsh response as ad-hominem, and regardless of whether you explicitly argued that in the context of the Karsh disagreement, you believed it was ad-hominem; but you apparently don't believe it's similarly contentious to include Cole's calling Hitchens a drunkard. I brought up this up not because I believed Cole was name-calling then, but because if you aren't going to be convinced by other editors in disagreements over content, you might at least be motivated to stand consistent with your own previously expressed position. Abbenm 21:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK and how about this and this? If my goal here was to create the most absolutely airtight edifice of a consistent position, or bad faith, I could have easily just not mentioned the History News Network cite I found. I'm attempting the follow the facts backed up by RSs - that is the position I'm attempting to stay consistent with. This is why I don't find your assertion that it's "...just a silly and immaterial sentence" all that convincing. Even if I am "inconsistent", I don't think that makes your position better by default. I don't recall you advocating "summarizing" Cole's Karsh post to the uninformative degree you're advocating now, and that was without any secondary source support. <<-armon->> 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, nice try, but on more than one occasion I expressed willingness to go with a generalized summary as opposed to including specific charges, including once on your talk page in a statement you explicitly acknowledged. And it was explained by many editors that Cole's blog counts as a RS in certain contexts.

The sentence is silly and immaterial because it shows unnecessary and excessive interest in the specifics of how exactly Cole attacked Hitchens. And like I said before, the opening sentence already says they "traded barbs", so the "informative" factor you are so concerned about is already covered.

The difference between "trading barbs" and "Hitchens is a drunk" which you are so interested in presenting, is not that the article becomes more "informative" but that the charges, removed from the arguments in which they are made, serve to characterize Cole as a hotheaded mudslinging partisan who just throws around insults. Now maybe it was an accident or inadvertent that you found yourself in defense of another edit which sneak-attacks Cole, which I am willing to forgive and discuss before editing the page. But slipping in contentious and disputable sentences, reverting changes to them, and being unresponsive to disagreements with your edits does not show interest or willingness to co-operate which is essential to make the editing process accurate and workable for everyone involved. Abbenm 05:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon's sophistry boggles the mind. When he first started all this edit warring by removing Cole's response to Karsh, his explanation was WP:BLP issues involving name-calling. That he continues to insist on calling Hitchens a drunk and a warmonger in this biography is ludicrous. This sort of stuff is exactly why nobody takes Wikipedia seriously, and it is a shame.csloat 02:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

<yawn> You seem to take WP seriously enough, it's obviously your battleground. <<-armon->> 11:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sloat, are you saying that Armon is calling Hitchens a drunk and warmonger? Cole has said that, Armon is just quoting him. These are quotes from Cole and they are illustrative of the way he engages in discourse with those he disagrees with. They should stay in the article. Elizmr 14:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WP's roll in Karsh response

I added a few sentences about the fact that Cole's response, and thus much of the content of the paragraph, was inspired by JC's (old) wikipedia article. It is worth noting, since wikipedia and wikipedians, at least in JC's view played some roll in this incident. This is from the same JC post alre,ady cited, so I just moved the ref down rather than repeating it. Wachholder0 17:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence reads: Cole complained that right-wingers keep distorting wikipedia articles about him, and responded directly to Karsh in his blog. Cole cited here: Juan Cole: Complains that rightwingers keep distorting Wiki entries about him. At the time he wrote the blog post, there were two Cole articles, this and "Views and Controversies". V&C has since been deleted as a POV Fork. Is this acceptable? <<-armon->> 02:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Official translation?

I'm not disputing that it isn't official, (of course I am challenginging it..) but I don't see this statement is supported by the referenced NY Times article. Here's what the Times says in the citation:

This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.

The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.

If you find a reference in the NY Times that says it's official, that's certainly acceptable, but I don't think the citation supports this claim --CSTAR 05:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong NYT article. Try this: [1] "All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Isarig 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Please note that I'm merely performing due diligence and checking out the supporting references. In this instance, the supporting reference is [30] which did not provide the needed statement.--CSTAR 05:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have an objection with the current sentence since it puts the contentious phrase "wipe off the map" in quotes. The meaning "Wiping Israel away" given by the official agencies unmistakably means getting rid of it, but we are talking about a dispute between Htichens and Cole involving nuances of translation (including the word "map"). So at the very least we should remove the quotes and replace it with something else such as "wipe away" as provided by the above citation.--CSTAR 06:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitchens: Not even Professor Cole will dispute that, in the above passages, the term "occupying regime" means Israel and the term "world oppressor" stands for the United States. (The title of the conference, incidentally, was The World Without Zionism.) In fact, Khomeini's injunctions are referred to twice. Quite possibly, "wiped off the map" is slightly too free a translation of what he originally said, and what it is mandatory for his followers to repeat. So, I give it below, in Persian and in English, and let you be the judge:

Cole: The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.

I suggest leaving it as it is. The scare-quotes and link to the main article is enough to inform the reader that this was a disputed translation, As for Hitch and Cole, it's a phrase they both used, and the "nuances of translation" wasn't the thrust either of them made. The point was that Hitchens was arguing that Cole is an apologist - Cole was arguing that Hitchens was a warmonger. See this, which is endorsed by Cole here. <<-armon->> 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Armon' The article in your version claims that the official iranian translation supported the "wiped off the map" translation. The evidence cited above, (the NY Times article linked to by Isarig), doesn't support this assertion. I'm happy to leave it exactly as suggested by the article, but to put it inq quotes asnd say it is the offical Iranian version is just wrong. As far as the drinking problem accusation I have no real objection (although frankly, armon I think it's a bit silly t put it in there). --CSTAR 16:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it. The official Iranian summary states He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [2], but that's reported in the main article and they were arguing about the NYT version. <<-armon->> 01:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If we quote Bronner's piece (the NYT article that states "all official translations") then we have to quote Cole's response to Bronner. Also, if we want to include Hitchens' non-notable charge that Cole is an "apologist" for Ahmadenijad that is fine but we then must include Cole's actual statements about the man - that he is a "crank" and a "fascist," and let's be sure to cite Cole's "scorecard" on the issue right here. It turns out Hitchens is far more of an "apologist" if we must observe such things; but, as I said, it's really not notable.csloat 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes and we should be sure to include this Cole passage from the source Armon cites above: "I personally despise everything Ahmadinejad stands for, not to mention the odious Khomeini, who had personal friends of mine killed so thoroughly that we have never recovered their bodies." If we're going to give any credence whatsoever to Hitchens' embarrassingly pathetic attempt to paint Cole as an "apologist" for Ahmadenijad or Khomeini, let's be sure to quote what Cole actually said about the issues. csloat 12:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are differences of opinion on the relative merits of their arguments. Don't remove cites, don't argue Cole's case, and please stick to the matter at hand. <<-armon->> 12:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

None of that is responsive to the above. Again, if we are going to make this about the dubious charge that Cole is some kind of "apologist" for Iran, the above material belongs in the article. csloat 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Views on Afghanistan

In 2001, Cole criticized journalist Robert Fisk in a letter to the London Independent for charging the U.S. with "war crimes" in Afghanistan. Cole argued that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan would likely prevent a large scale famine: "If Mr Fisk is so upset about the death of a few hundred murderous thugs who went back on their word to surrender and viciously fell upon their captors, how would he have felt about five million corpses in the great Taliban famine? If this mass-scale starvation is avoided, it will be because of the brave US pilots whom Mr Fisk slanders as criminals."[13]

This looks more like an attempt to argue that Cole is "tougher" on the WOT than Fisk (not difficult) than a presentation of his views. Is the reader meant to infer that Cole supported the war against the Taliban, or that Cole doesn't think US troops are war criminals? These are two different issues. Rather than leaving it to inferences, we should simply state Cole's position and cite them. A letter to the editor criticizing someone else's position is not the best way to do this. <<-armon->> 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from Cole's letter and is far preferable to a summary of Cole's position presented by a Wikipedia editor who is virulently anti-Cole. csloat 02:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've got that out of way, any other comments? <<-armon->> 11:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your explicit argument is that a direct quote should be paraphrased in order to change the intended meaning. I'm open to a suggested rewrite if one is presented, but I'm opposed in principle to the sentiment. Chris Cunningham 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realize that was my explicit argument. I thought I'd asked for clarification of his position with better cites. BTW, what did you think I was going to do, hide the fact he's against famine? <<-armon->> 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea what you were planning to do, to be honest, but what you actually said was that a letter presented in Cole's own words was a poorer reference for his opinions than a theoretical paraphrasing of them linked to some other citations. And what I said was that I didn't agree with the sentiment, but I'd be happy to change my mind were the theoretical rewrite and accompanying citations an improvement. Chris Cunningham 09:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not quote farm. When a response is overly confusing or contains ad hominem that may be adversely prejudicial to either party (and Cole's responses are usually both, so we are doing him a favor), or just for reasons of copy-editing, we can summarize. In fact, our default behavior should be to summarize, and only to quote directly where there is an exceptional reason to do so. - Merzbow 18:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone could suggest what they think is wrong with the current section and explain why it should be changed and what it should be changed to, perhaps there would be more to go on; at this point the dispute over this section is entirely theoretical. csloat 10:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Read this section -or even the post immediately above yours. It unclear what his position was on the Afghanistan war, a letter to the editor disputing US troops are war crims is a poor cite, and poor way to present his views, WP is not a quote-farm. By a better cite, I'm looking for his views on the subject published somewhere. <<-armon->> 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)